A master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment, even if the act was unauthorized or improper.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in suit No. 208 of 1962.

( 2 ) BALBIR Kohli (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner filed an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation of Rs, 50,000. 00 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 19. 10. 1962. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner was walking on the Nicholson Road on 16. 10. 1962 at 11 A. M. when a motor car, bearing registration No. DLD 1007, driven by one Des Raj Singh, came at full speed and leaving its proper side of the road, turned towards the opposite side of the road on which the petitioner was walking and knocked him down as a result of which he received serious injuries. The further case of the petitioner was that the driver of the car. Ram Sabad, respondent herein, had taken the car to Mori Gate side on the instructions of his employer, Mr. P. N. Khanna, the owner of the car, and that the car stopped on the way on account of some defect in the dynamo and that the driver then sought the assistance of Des Raj Singh who was a mechanic in the Punjab Motor Workshop situated nearby and while Des Raj Singh was trying to start the car and Ram Sabad was pushing it, the car started and suddenly picked up _speed and Des Raj Singh was unable to control it and the car swerved to the right side of the road and knocked down the petitioner. After the petitioner was taken to a nursing home, it was found that he sustained fracture of the skull bone and he remained in the nursing home for a number of days for treatment. Even after he was discharged from the nursing home, he continued to suffer from headache and fatigue on account of the injury to the skull bone. As a result of this injury, the petitioners s earning capacity was cosiderably reduced. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 by way of compensation for the actual as well as the general damages.

( 3 ) THE petition was opposed by Ram Sabad, driver of the car and Mr. P. N. Khanna owner of the car respondents herein. According to the joint written statement filed by them, it was first of all denied that Ram Sabad was the employee of Mr. P. N. Khanna, It was further alleged that Ram Sabad had merely asked Des Raj Singh to repair the dynamo of the car and that he did not ask him to drive the car. While Ram Sabad was taking tea in the nearby restaurant, Des Raj Singh drove the car without the authority of Ram Sabad and caused the accident. Under these circumstances. Ram Sabad and Mr. P. N. Khanna denied any liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The Insurance Company with which the car was insured and which was also impleaded as a party by the petitioner, filed a separate written statement denying its liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner on the ground that under the terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance company was not responsible for the act of Des Raj Singh who did not hold a licence to drive the car.

( 4 ) THE following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal 1. Whether the accident resulting in the injuries to the petitioner was caused by rash and negligent act of driving of car by respondent No. 1 as alleged in para 22 of the petition ? 2. Whether respondent No. 2 is not liable on the grounds mentioned in para 22 of its written statement ? 3. To what amount, if any, as damages is the petitioner entitled ? 3. A. Whether Des Raj Singh was driving the car at the relevant time without the knowledge, authority and consent of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as pleaded in para 22 of their written statement ? If so, its effect. ? The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of Des Raj Singh and Des Raj Singh himself was driving the car under the authority of Ram Sabad. He, therefore, held that Mr. P. N. Khanna was vi